Standing Committee G

[Mr. Win Griffiths in the Chair]

Education Bill

Win Griffiths: I understand that there will be a Programming Sub-Committee, so I shall suspend the sitting for a couple of minutes.
 Sitting suspended. 
 On resuming—

John Heppell: I beg to move,
(1) That the Order of the Committee [11 December 2001] relating to programming, as amended [13 and 18 December 2001 and 10 January 2002] be amended as follows— 
 in paragraph (1), at the end there is inserted 'and on Monday 21st January at half past Four o'clock'; 
 in paragraph (2), '18' is omitted and '19' inserted; 
 the entries for the 13th to 18th sittings are omitted and the following is inserted: 
 13th Clauses 115 to 126, Schedule 12, Clauses 127 to 144, Schedule 13 
 14th Clauses 115 to 126, Schedule 12, Clauses 127 to 144, Schedule 13 (so far as not previously concluded) 
 15th Clauses 115 to 126, Schedule 12, Clauses 127 to 144, Schedule 13 (so far as not previously concluded)7 pm 
 16th Clauses 145 to 148, Schedule 14, Clauses 149 to 151, Schedule 15, Clauses 152 to 170 
 17th Clauses 145 to 148, Schedule 14, Clauses 149 to 151, Schedule 15, Clauses 152 to 170 (so far as not previously concluded)10 pm 
 18th Clauses 171 to 181, Schedule 16, Clause 182, Schedule 17, Clause 183, Schedule 18, Clauses 184 to 189, Schedule 11, Clauses 190 to 193, Schedule 19, Clauses 194 to 200, Schedule 20, Clauses 201 to 211, Schedule 21, Schedule 22, new Clauses, new Schedules 
 19th Clauses 171 to 181, Schedule 16, Clause 182, Schedule 17, Clause 183, Schedule 18, Clauses 184 to 189, Schedule 11, Clauses 190 to 193, Schedule 19, Clauses 194 to 200, Schedule 20, Clauses 201 to 211, Schedule 21, Schedule 22, new Clauses, new Schedules (so far as not previously concluded)5 pm 
 (2) The Standing Committee recommends that two days be allotted for consideration and Third Reading of the Education Bill.

Graham Brady: I should like to make a brief comment and, in passing, apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) for his absence. He is serving with the armed forces parliamentary scheme and will not be here until later today.
 The Opposition are grateful that the Government have listened to our concerns. The removal of knives 
 during the course of our proceedings will allow more responsible progress through the Bill, and we will not be artificially constrained from focusing on aspects that require greater scrutiny. 
 I also welcome the Government's agreement to allow two days on Report, in recognition of the fact that large parts of the Bill have not been dealt with adequately in Committee. For the record, I had asked for two and a half days. However, I accept that the Government have made some movement, and that is welcome. We can proceed on that basis. 
 Question put and agreed to.

Adrian Bailey: On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. I want to put on the record a declaration of interest before we debate the next clause and amendments. My wife is a schoolteacher.Clause 115 Teachers' pay and conditions

Clause 115 - Teachers' pay and conditions

Graham Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 484, in page 72, line 10, leave out 'School Teachers' and insert 'Teaching Professions'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment No. 485, in page 72, line 14, leave out 'School Teachers' and insert 'Teaching Professions'.
 Amendment No. 488, in page 72, line 19, leave out 'School Teachers' and insert 'Teaching Professions'. 
 Amendment No. 489, in page 72, line 37, leave out 'School Teachers' and insert 'Teaching Professions'. 
 Amendment No. 490, in page 75, line 34, leave out 'School Teachers' and insert 'Teaching Professions'.

Graham Brady: I am pleased to speak to the amendments, which are the kind that we all like, in that they are identical in their effect.

Vernon Coaker: On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) made a declaration about his wife being a schoolteacher, may I make a declaration of interest? My wife is also a schoolteacher.

Phil Willis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Griffiths. My wife is also a schoolteacher. At least, she was this morning when she set off for work.

Win Griffiths: I am not taking part in the debate, but my wife is also a schoolteacher, and so is her brother.

Graham Brady: Not to be left out, I should declare that my wife is spending so much time assisting our children with their education that she thinks she has become a teacher.
 I hope that Ministers will accept that my simple point has real value and purpose. Members on both sides of the Committee believe that it is increasingly important that action is taken to restore the standing of the teaching profession. In recent decades, the profession has fallen from the high public esteem in which it was traditionally regarded and in which it 
 should be held. The amendment would substitute the term ''school teachers'' with the term ''teaching professions''. That is a small but important step that would ensure that teachers are properly recognised as a profession, and that their status is reflected in the titles of the public bodies that deal with them. I hope that Ministers will accept that the amendment would have no substantive effect on the Bill's aims, but might in a small way help us to achieve our common aim of raising and emphasising the professional standing of teachers. Teachers up and down the country would greatly appreciate the move.

Phil Willis: The Liberal Democrats have much sympathy with the arguments made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). He makes a sensible point. Early in February, the Government will introduce a Green Paper on the curriculum for 14 to 19-year-olds, and we all envisage closer ties between different organisations in the 14-19 sector. Divisions exist between different parts of the teaching profession, for example in schools and further education colleges where there will increasingly be an interchange of staff. It is therefore important that we refer to the teaching profession in its broader sense. The amendment would enable us to bridge that gap, and would allow those who work in the 16-plus sector to work in the 14-19 sector and to be covered by the necessary regulations.
 This is a sensible move forward, and I hope that the Government will take it seriously, even if they do not agree to the amendment. We are moving into new times, and we are all trying to re-establish teaching as the profession which I always believed it to be. I am sure that the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) believed that he was in a teaching profession. It was not a job to us, but a profession. That professional status has declined dramatically, largely because Conservative Governments undermined the teaching profession year after year. 
 In the spirit of harmony that has broken out in the Committee, which was engineered by the Government Whip who has metamorphosed in that regard, I hope that the Minister will agree to this sensible amendment.

Stephen Timms: I welcome you back to the Chair of the Committee, Mr. Griffiths.
 I agree with the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West about the importance of the standing of the teaching profession. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) is right about the approach that teachers take to their work. I am sure that he accurately expressed the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling. The School Teachers Review Body was originally set up with that in mind. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave an important speech to the Social Market Foundation in November entitled ''Professionalism and Trust'', thereby articulating our approach to the teaching profession. 
 There is a serious difficulty with this proposal, as the teaching profession goes a good deal wider than schoolteachers as defined in clause 118. The Secretary of State determines the pay and conditions of schoolteachers who are employed by LEAs and governing bodies. The review body reports on that, but not on the pay and conditions of other members of the teaching profession. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough rightly makes the point that a growing number of people regard themselves as members of the teaching profession. I do not think that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West wishes to widen the review body's terms of reference to include that larger group. Indeed, he has tabled some amendments that would weaken the role of the School Teachers Pay Body.

Phil Willis: Does the Minister accept that many professionals working in further education or in sixth-form colleges, who deliver the same package of four AS-levels and three A-levels as a school sixth-form, are on significantly lower pay and have different conditions? The Government should address that issue. I hope that through such amendments as these we can start to address some of the inequities in the system that are indefensible in modern education.

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman, I think, will shortly argue for a more limited and restricted role for the review body, rather than for the wider role that he now supports. There certainly are differences. It is important to give the review body a clear remit. The legislation makes it clear, and the body works well. It is important that the name relates to that remit. I hope on that basis the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West will not press the amendment. I agree with much of what he said about the importance of the teaching profession having a high standing. The Government are keen to make progress in that respect.

Graham Brady: I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful remarks. I certainly welcome his support for the principle behind the amendments. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough raised an important point about teachers in further education, but that was not the focus of the amendments. The Minister raised another interesting aspect when he said that there are many others who regard themselves as part of the teaching profession. I fully accept that some people do so legitimately, but the Minister should consider the implication of professional status.
 Inclusive as the Government may wish to be on all matters, professional status necessarily implies exclusivity. One is either a member of a profession or one is not. The Minister needs to reflect on where that line should properly be drawn, because if people were allowed to define whether they were members of a teaching profession, that professional status would be diluted. If the Minister really wants to enhance the professional status of teachers, which is an aim that we share, he will have to tackle that problem. Much of what the Government are doing, such as compulsory registration with the General Teaching Council, implies that they recognise that, although the Minister's remarks suggested that the point is not yet entirely taken. I hope that it will be in due course. 
 We have had a useful, brief exchange on the amendment, which I shall not press to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Phil Willis: I beg to move amendment No. 499, in clause 115, page 72, line 13, after 'exist', insert
'subject to an annual affirmative resolution procedure'.
 In opposition, the Labour party strongly opposed the setting up of the School Teachers Review Body under the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991. At that time, it rightly argued that the body was in direct contravention of International Labour Organisation recommendations, which it then strongly supported. The teaching profession assumed that when there was a Labour Government with Mr. Kinnock as its socialist Prime Minister, which they expected to be in 1992, there would be a return to the norm of proper bargaining between teachers and their employers. 
 I strongly support the principle that every worker has the right to be represented and to negotiate pay and conditions. It is sad that some members of the modern Labour party do not feel that that right should be protected. The Government do not intend to repeal the 1991 Act, and they are determined that the School Teachers Review Body should continue under the Bill. That organisation is appointed by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State; there is no other case in Britain of an organisation that decides on the pay and conditions of a group of workers, who are not allowed to negotiate, being appointed by those who provide the resources; that is, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. I accept that that situation is not of this Government's making, but it is important to remind the Committee about it before I talk about the substance of the amendment.

David Miliband: If the hon. Gentleman reflects on the past 10 years, does he think that teachers would have got a better deal bargaining collectively or would it have been a better deal for schools? The average pay rises for teachers as a result of the STRB compared well with the previous 10 years and with what they got out of collective bargaining. I ask that question in a reasonably open spirit.

Phil Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking the question because he is wrong. Since the STRB was set up, comparing teachers' pay with that of other non-manual workers, the average received by other non-manual workers—[Interruption.] Some comparisons have to be made and that is the yardstick that the Government have adopted. It has gone down significantly over the period, but that is not my main argument. In the past 10 years, we could have moved towards a single professional association representing all teachers, which is essential and I have argued the case with the individual teacher unions. The division gets in the way of direct collective bargaining and agreements between employers and teachers.
 The purpose of the amendment is to apply our annual affirmative resolution procedure to the STRB, which is now 10 years old. To be fair, since coming into office in 1997 the Government have made 
 significant changes to the remuneration of teachers: they have introduced a threshold, performance management, advanced skills teachers and other arrangements. It was the Government, not the School Teachers Review Body, who decided to implement those changes. I do not question their right to do so, but the time has come for them not just to reaffirm the STRB as the model for deciding these matters for the next five to 10 years, but constantly to review the position. 
 The Government envisage at least 10 per cent. of schools having earned autonomy by the end of this Parliament. One element of earned autonomy is the ability to determine pay and conditions. The grant-maintained experience showed that few schools took advantage of such arrangements, so I doubt whether many schools will take advantage now. It is more likely that the STRB will become increasingly obsolete. 
 Every year, the House has an opportunity to examine the work of the School Teachers Review Body and, under affirmative resolution procedure, to declare whether it is appropriate for it to continue. After all, it is a quango, not a direct negotiation between teachers and their employers. It is time for the Government to assess whether the STRB is appropriate in our new era of valuing teachers. The Secretary of State made a statement to the Social Market Foundation about professionalism and trust, but in an age of professionalism and trust we have no need of a body to tell teachers how much they can earn. The amendment is designed to deal with that matter.

Andrew Turner: I listened with great care to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. As usual, he speaks with a forked tongue: the amendment says one thing, but his explanation says another. I sympathise with his argument that a quango takes negotiation out of the hands of individuals and their employers and places decision-making in the hands of a national body.
 The School Teachers Review Body was set up for good reasons. As the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband) pointed out, since its establishment in 1991—my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Baker of Dorking set up its predecessor—the teaching profession has benefited from reasonably generous pay increases and from the fact that negotiations about salaries were removed from the sphere of conflict between employer and employee. 
 That was very much the position before 1986. Hon. Members may recall that at that time the employers' organisations were on one side, and the teachers' trade unions on the other. In the middle were the Secretary of State's appointees. They all attempted to reach a mutually agreed position on teachers' pay and usually did so to the sound of considerable argument in the background. On many occasions, there were strikes or other so-called industrial action and activity that diminished the professional standing of teachers in the eyes of the world outside and that did considerable damage to pupils in their classrooms. It is fair to say that, since 1986, those noises off have reduced. 
 We should ask what the consequence would be of what the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough proposes. He says that there should be a single teaching union, but why? What is the benefit to teachers of being forced into a monopoly trade union rather than one that more effectively represents their standpoints and views of professionalism? Some teachers believe that it is inappropriate to strike or take similar action. Others believe that when their union says that action should be taken, they should join it willy-nilly. 
 I have been a member of unions that hold both positions. I am a former member of the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers and of the Professional Association of Teachers. I left one union and joined the other because I felt that the strike action that the NAS/UWT promoted in 1978 and 1979 damaged my relationships with the pupils whom I was in the school to teach and with other members of staff in the common room. 
 There is a good reason why members of the teaching profession should not have a monopoly union representative. They hold different views, as is right, but different unions found it much more difficult to agree a unified position when it came to pay negotiations. As a result, some were striking for one thing and some for another. It was often difficult for employers to meet the desires of both branches of the teachers' side of the Burnham committee. 
 I am not convinced that it would be better to return to the model of employee-employer relations in the teaching profession that existed right through the 1960s, 1970s and into the middle of the 1980s. My late father, who joined the profession in 1937, strongly believed that it was the action in the 1960s that so diminished the standing of teachers in the public's view. He was uncomfortable because he felt that that action had undermined his relationships with his school, pupils and parents exactly as I described and he did not want teachers to be put in that position. 
 There are different views on the issue, but I do not believe that a professional goes on strike. They must put the needs of their clients—pupils, in this case—above any personal aspiration. A return to the bargaining arrangements as they were called—battling arrangements would be a better description—of the 1960s is the last thing that we want in the profession. 
 The hon. Gentleman's amendment talks merely about maintaining the review body by an affirmative resolution each year. I see no difficulty in having a debate on teachers' pay each year. The Liberal Democrats have many Opposition days on which they can bring motions before the House . If they think it is important, perhaps they could do that. I do not know how frequently they have done so in the past. 
 It will be unwise to assume that this review body will cease to be of relevance, even in the conditions of earned autonomy that the Government hope will 
 prevail among many schools as a result of the passing of this Bill. It is useful to have a national benchmark. It is particularly useful for teachers to be placed on the same level as right hon. and hon. Members of this Committee, nurses and doctors, the medical professions, and high court judges, in having an external review of appropriate remuneration levels for the profession and the minimum conditions in which teachers are expected to operate. That is not to say that teachers by private arrangement should not agree differently, and that they should not agree differently under the conditions of earned autonomy that the Government are proposing. I see no difficulty in having a professional benchmark in the way that the School Teachers Review Body was designed to establish. 
 To reiterate, the STRB has led fewer strikes or industrial disputes and has achieved better remuneration and terms of conditions for teachers than was the case before these arrangements were established.

Stephen Timms: The review body has worked well in its 10 years' of existence. It has certainly brought stability to teachers' pay settlements. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields was right to point out that it has served the interests of teachers well too. The review body was born out of years of previous conflict. I do not think that anyone would regard the old way of doing things as a good way to settle these matters, but all that has ended.
 The review body is widely supported among teachers and employers. With the exception of the National Union of Teachers, the other unions do not object to it, so it has achieved a remarkably wide array of support. That reflects the success that it has had in its 10 years in operation and the fact that it replaced a bargaining system that had failed. 
 It is unacceptable that the STRB should exist only on the basis of the annual parliamentary debate. That would be a recipe for disarray. Perhaps the suggestion was simply a probing point. I think that the Minister would agree that weakness, confusion and uncertainty about teachers' pay is in nobody's interests and that it is important that we have a clear system and that people know how it works. People need to be confident that the system will deliver a sensible outcome, as it has done in the past 10 years. 
 I have more sympathy with what the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said about the attractions of a single teaching association. I certainly had more sympathy than the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on that matter. Of course, it is a matter for all of the profession entirely. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough made a very valid argument on that point, but I do not agree with him about the amendment. I think that on reflection he would also feel that the confusion that it would cause would be unhelpful. I hope that he will withdraw it.

Phil Willis: I am grateful to the Minister for the courteous way in which he has dealt with the amendments. At least he is not still fighting an election.
 How we deal with teachers' pay and conditions in the future is an important issue. The employers' organisations that sponsored this amendment, not the National Union of Teachers, also hold strongly to the view that the STRB has served a purpose and should be replaced. We should negotiate about that. The Government are rightly considering innovative ways in which we can take the profession and our schools forward, and the amendment would keep that process under review. I hear what the Minister says, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Graham Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 486, in page 72, leave out line 15.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 487, in page 72, line 16, after 'appoint' insert 'the chairman and'.

Graham Brady: These are probing amendments, and they would bring the appointment of the review body chairman into line with the mechanism for the appointment of review body members. Committee members will have noticed that the chairman will be appointed by the Prime Minister, whereas the other members will be appointed by the Secretary of State. Would it be more appropriate for the chairman to be appointed by the Secretary of State? That would acknowledge that the Secretary of State has a role in the development of education policy, given that doubt has arisen as to where Government education policy originates.
 There is increasing press speculation that the shift is continuing and that Downing street is in the driving seat on education policy more than the Department. I am giving the Minister an opportunity in the turf war between the Department and Downing street to seize a small but important piece of territory. I am sure that with the support of his hon. Friend the Whip, his hon. Friends on the Government Benches—one or two may have divided loyalties—would be readily persuaded to join him in emphasising that the Secretary of State is capable of making such decisions. In appointing the chairman of the review body, the Secretary of State may be able to perform a useful function.

Stephen Timms: At present, all members of the School Teachers Review Body are appointed by the Prime Minister. The Bill will change that: only the appointment of the chairman will be left to the Prime Minister. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not the result of the turf war to which he erroneously alluded. It puts the arrangements for that review body in line with the arrangements for all the others. The STRB has a critical role: a large number of public sector workers are affected by it. Pay is one of the key factors in recruitment and retention, which is currently an important concern. The reports of the review body have a critical impact on the country's economy. They are sent to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister. The STRB chairman has a key role and should be appointed by, and with the authority of, the Prime Minister: that gives the body additional status. It is also appropriate for review body members to be appointed by the Secretary of State. That arrangement puts it in line with other
 review bodies: the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, the Doctors and Dentists Remuneration Review Body, the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine, the Prison Service Pay Review Body and the Senior Salaries Review Body. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight reminded the Committee that Members of Parliament are the beneficiaries of such a body as well. The arrangement in the Bill will put the School Teachers' Review Body in line with the others, so I commend it to the Committee.

Graham Brady: I am grateful to the Minister. He gave an explanation that seemed to run along the lines of the Secretary of State being permitted to perform some functions, but with her work being sent to the Prime Minister for checking or marking at the end of the process. That will not come as a surprise to Committee members. The Minister said that I was wrong to imply that there was turf war, so we are left to draw the conclusion that there is just a meek surrender from the Department. I gave the Minister an opportunity; sadly, he has chosen not to take it. However, I do not intend to press for a Division, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Graham Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 537, in page 72, line 17, at end add—
'(5) The National Assembly for Wales may establish a consultative committee on pay and conditions for the teaching profession in Wales, which may make representations on any function relating to teachers in Wales to the Review Body.'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 538, in clause 116, page 72, line 20, after 'state', insert
'or a committee established under section 115(5),'.
 No. 539, in clause 117, page 73, line 11, after 'schools', insert— 
'( ) a committee established under section 115(5),'.

Graham Brady: As you know, Mr. Griffiths, from your splendid time in the Chair of this Committee—a time that I am sure you will remember with great joy and affection—I have sought to be entirely even-handed. I do not like to leave out any Government Member, and from time to time I have tried to give the Under-Secretary of State for Wales a role in our proceedings. Without wanting to impose significant changes to the powers of the Welsh Assembly or shift the balance of the devolution settlement, the amendments would open up a new avenue for greater consultation. They would not replicate the STRB mechanism exactly, but would allow the National Assembly for Wales to establish a consultative committee to have an input into the deliberations of both the STRB and the Secretary of State, or the Prime Minister as the case may be, in matters of teacher remuneration.
 As we see light at the end of the tunnel in the Committee's proceedings, I was keen to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales was not entirely left out. He should have an opportunity to speak for the Principality and about the possibility that 
 consultation might be established with the STRB mechanism.

Don Touhig: I am touched by the caring, loving and tender approach of the new Tory party, as shown by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West this morning. It is not something we are used to from the Tories in Wales, as you would know Mr. Griffiths.

Phil Willis: There aren't any.

Don Touhig: Well, there are one or two still under the surface.
 The amendment would allow a form of special consideration of teachers' pay and conditions in Wales. Pay and conditions are not devolved to the Assembly and are matters for the Secretary of State. The STRB is required to take evidence from representatives of local education authorities, other employers and teachers, and we believe that those arrangements are appropriate means of reflecting the interests of the teaching profession in Wales. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is committed to consulting the Assembly before taking final decisions on matters relating to the review body. For example, the Department's evidence to the STRB takes account of comments made by the Assembly. 
 I am concerned that the amendments carry the potential to lead to significant differences in the pay structures of teachers in England and Wales. There is no question of that happening while teachers' pay and conditions remain the responsibility of the Secretary of State. 
 The question of whether teachers' pay in Wales should be devolved is separate. It was resolved in the face of stiff opposition from the Conservative party when we settled the devolution arrangements in the Government of Wales Act 1998 and transferred a number of functions to the Assembly. However, this was not one of them. I believe that it is the Conservative party's policy to extend the devolution settlement by adding more powers and responsibilities to the Assembly in Wales. If that is now its policy it is very new, which is interesting. It may or may not have told its colleagues in Cardiff. 
 The practical consideration of the STRB's work load must be taken into account. The board does not carry out separate consultations for England and Wales. It is a body of unpaid volunteers, and it does not have the resources to do so. These amendments would carry greater logic and conviction if they were aimed at establishing a new review body for teachers' pay in Wales. However, that would fly in the face of the devolution settlement and I do not believe that his party would want to do that. 
 I am concerned about the prospect of separate pay and conditions developing between teachers in Wales and England. We would be on a slippery slope regarding Welsh interests. As you will know, Mr. Griffiths, Welsh schools suffer fewer problems with teacher recruitment and retention than schools in some 
 parts of England. I am sure that market logic will dictate that separate pay and conditions for teachers in England and Wales would lead to the pay of teachers in Wales eventually falling behind that of teachers in England. I am sure that that is not the hon. Gentleman's intention, and it is certainly not something that the Government would support. In the light of those comments, I urge the hon. Gentleman to be satisfied with the present devolution settlement, as we are, and to withdraw his amendment.

Graham Brady: I am delighted that I brought the Minister into deliberations. It has been an enlightening exchange, not least because of the logic of the Government's position. In elements of the Bill we have seen a clear indication that the Government wish to move away from the kind of national pay agreements to which the Minister just referred. I wonder whether he really believes that, under the more decentralised, locally determined pay arrangements towards which the Bill's logic is moving us, teachers in Wales are about to see their pay and conditions reduced. I do not believe that that is likely to happen, but it is an interesting point.
 Perhaps more interesting was his tangential approach to the difficulties that arise when pay and conditions differ on either side of the border. That is an implicit recognition of some of the difficulties that might arise as a result of such an arrangement being made in relation to the English-Scottish border, where that situation already exists. The Minister did not specifically comment on the situation in Scotland, but by implication, he suggested that it was regrettable.

Don Touhig: Teachers move far more frequently between posts in England and Wales than they do between England and Scotland. Scotland has long established separate pay arrangements. That is not the case in Wales, which is integrated into the same system as England, with the same pay and conditions. That has proved satisfactory and beneficial for the teaching profession in England and Wales. For those reasons I strongly resist the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's arguments, but that in no way reflects on the way Scotland has developed its education system. It has been separate for many years.

Graham Brady: I am grateful to the Minister for clearing up that uncertainty. As I said at the outset, the purpose of the amendments is to explore how consultation might best take place. The Minister seems satisfied with consultation taking place solely with individual LEAs.

Andrew Turner: I wonder whether we might explore the issue further. The Minister may be happy with it, but I am not convinced that members of the teaching profession in Wales will continue to benefit from the existing level of consultation, for the reason that he outlined a moment ago. The benefits of the Bill will, to a great extent, not be felt in Wales. The Government have prescribed an imaginative and innovative range of measures for schools in England that would enable teachers in England to enjoy infinitely better terms and conditions of employment than those that the School Teachers Review Body may recommend. It is harder for teachers in Wales to enjoy those benefits. They may wish to see some improvement in their general benefits
 that they cannot negotiate at school level, unlike teachers in England. That is why we believe that the measures might be appropriate.

Graham Brady: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We will watch with great care how the developments that will be ushered in by the Bill will affect schools in England and Wales. The purpose of the amendments was to secure an explanation of the Government's view, which the Minister has given. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 115 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 116 - Review body: function

Graham Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 492, in page 72, line 20, after 'state' insert:
'or a General Teaching Council'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 525, in page 72, line 20, after 'Secretary of State', insert:
'or other appropriate or relevant body.'

Graham Brady: The impact of the amendments would affect consultation and which bodies it is appropriate to involve in the process by which the STRB would arrive at its conclusions. Amendment No. 492 would introduce an expectation that the General Teaching Council would be involved in consultation on these deliberations, and seeks to draw from Ministers what they believe the role of the GTC to be in matters relating to pay and conditions. Do they believe that the role is integral to the process, and do they wish the GTC to be directly involved? If so, how would it be involved and at what stage of the deliberations? Presumably, the GTC would be in a position to make submissions directly to the Prime Minister or to the Secretary of State in various matters affecting pay and conditions. It may be appropriate for the GTC also to make representations to the STRB. If the Minister agrees, he may wish to include that in the Bill. Amendment No. 525 would broaden the basis on which other appropriate bodies could be involved.

Chris Grayling: I also welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Griffiths.
 There has been much debate about the degree to which we believe that the Bill concentrates many powers in the hands of the Secretary of State over a range of different functions. The amendment would provide a small but significant safety valve for the process of possible centralisation. It would allow other groups involved in the profession to seek the involvement of the review body in matters of teacher employment and would provide a degree of reassurance to the teaching profession. It would be an additional route by which the teaching profession could raise and debate issues. As such, teachers' representatives would welcome it. I hope that the Minister will consider making that small addition to the Bill; it would enhance the profession's reception of it.

Phil Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West for raising the issue. We must get a clear idea from the Government about what they consider to be the role of the GTC. I believe that the hon. Gentleman sat with me on the Committee that set it up.

Graham Brady: No, I did not.

Phil Willis: It must have been another hon. Member; they change so frequently.
 There was a huge debate at the time about the role of the GTC. Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members argued strongly that the GTC should be more than just a registration organisation, which was the Government's initial intention. Although I do not believe that they intended it to stay at that level, we were greatly concerned. 
 The hon. Gentleman's proposal is a step too far. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) is not right in saying that the teaching profession would welcome GTC involvement in pay and conditions issues. The role of the GTC is to advocate the profession's role in education; we have long needed such an organisation and advocacy. 
 I supported the GTC from the time that I entered the profession. However, I would not want to see it becoming embroiled in pay and conditions issues, because that is for the professional associations themselves. If the GTC were drawn into such debates and arguments, it would be put on a different footing and no longer impartial. It would have to support one organisation against another, and that would be regrettable.

Graham Brady: As I said at the outset, this is a probing amendment. We are having an interesting discussion. The hon. Gentleman has rightly said that the function of the GTC is to express views on the role of the teaching profession and its members. How can that be divided from the second part of the STRB functions to do with other conditions of employment, such as professional duties and working time? There is a clear overlap.

Phil Willis: I draw the distinction where the hon. Gentleman says that the GTC should become involved in the STRB process. The STRB was set up under the School Teachers Pay and Conditions Act 1991 specifically to deal with teachers' pay and conditions, and the Bill reinforces that. It acts as the interface between the Government as paymaster, the local authorities and individual schools and teachers.
 If the GTC were involved in such matters, it would be positioned alongside the professional associations. I do not think that that is what the GTC wants, what its chief executive or its chairman, Lord Puttnam wants, or what the teaching associations want it to be. They want an independent GTC that can advocate on behalf of the profession, responding to the Government's standards agenda and other involvements that affect schools. It should not interfere in matters that are the province of the professional associations, which are there to deal with the pay and conditions of their members, rather than with those broader issues.

Chris Grayling: May I seek a point of clarification? It would not be appropriate for the GTC to become involved as a lobbyist in pay and conditions matters. However, if I read the amendment correctly, it would offer the GTC the opportunity to make the review body aware of important matters. Issues of pay and conditions for teachers cross over into areas of standards. Would it be beneficial for the GTC to draw the attention of the review body to such issues?

Phil Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As I said, the amendment is a good way of probing the Government's thinking. The GTC can speak to the Government and professional associations directly, and if it wants to express an opinion, it will do so. My amendment is questioning something else. By inviting the GTC to be part of a formal organisation—the STRB—it would stray into territory that I do not believe it should. That is my point, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Andrew Turner: I should like to explore in more depth the points made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West that there is an area of overlap. The GTC might feel that an issue of pay and conditions has arisen, but cannot convince the Government or the professional organisations of the need to amend pay and conditions in order to implement that important issue. The GTC briefing explains that its purpose is to contribute to improving the standard of teaching and the quality of learning and to maintain and improve standards of professional conduct. Improving the standard of teaching implies a commitment to additional training. The professional associations may not want that training to be taken outside the school day. The Government and the employers may not want it to take place during the school day or to provide money for it to take place outside the school day. The GTC may need to influence the STRB directly, rather than use the indirect routes to which the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough referred.
 On professional standing, the GTC has the power to remove teachers from the register. What are the consequences for employment in those circumstances? I assume the consequence is that they would cease to be employed. What is the position of an employer who has been deprived of a teacher whom they wished to employ? In a professional tribunal, it might be found that an employer had not given appropriate consideration to a teacher's continuing employment because a different body took the decision and nothing in the teacher's contract of employment or pay and conditions agreement enabled the teacher to be dismissed forthwith, which would be the consequence of removal from the register of the General Teaching Council. 
 It is unlikely that the amendment would be invoked frequently, but I see no reason why the GTC should not be consulted and be able to make a direct rather than an indirect contribution to the STRB's decisions.

Stephen Timms: The amendment goes further than the debate implied. It would give additional bodies the same rights as the Secretary of State in providing a remit to the STRB. Amendment No. 492 deals with
 the General Teaching Council, but amendment No. 525 is a more generalised version that leaves the field wide open.
 We had an interesting debate about the GTC. Both a clause and a schedule are yet to come that will provide further opportunities to discuss the subject. Councils have a different role than is envisaged by putting them on a par with the Secretary of State in providing a remit to the STRB. The GTC exercises important regulatory and advisory functions on professional matters with the aim of improving the standards of teaching, and maintaining and improving standards of professional conduct among teachers. It has made an excellent start. 
 As I said, amendment No. 525 would leave the field wide open to anyone to provide remits to the STRB. The board has an important and difficult role. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales reminded the Committee a few minutes ago that the STRB is served by volunteers to whom we owe a debt of gratitude. They devote much time without reward to assessing evidence, providing reports and recommendations at the Secretary of State's request, so it would be unfair to impose on them—as would the amendment—the duty to consider any matter referred to them by a host of people and organisations. 
 Currently the STRB works within a remit provided by the Secretary of State. It reports independently in the light of evidence received from a range bodies. The GTC certainly has an interest in the work of the STRB and it is free to submit evidence if it wishes. It did so recently when the Secretary of State asked the STRB to consider the implications of the fee that teachers are required to pay to register with the GTC. There is nothing to prevent the GTC from submitting evidence again, but it is inappropriate to give it an additional remit and even less appropriate to offer an open-ended free-for-all and require the STRB to consider all representations. 
 I hope that our useful debate has clarified the requisite points and satisfied the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West.

Graham Brady: I am grateful for the Minister's clarification and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Graham Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 493, in page 72, line 33, leave out 'require a report' to end of line 34 and insert
'are to be sent a report under subsection (3) the Review Body shall publish it.'.

Win Griffiths: With this we may discuss amendment No. 496, in page 72, line 35, at end insert—
'( ) nothing in the foregoing shall allow the Review Body to propose a maximum level of remuneration for teachers or for any group of teachers.'.

Graham Brady: This is a simple point. A provision in the Bill states that when the STRB produces a report, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State shall arrange for it to be published. Amendment No. 493 would shift
 that balance by requiring the STRB to publish the report. That would accelerate the process by avoiding any unnecessary delay, and ensure greater openness by preventing the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State from delaying or preventing publication at particular times for political purposes. I look forward to the Minister's comments.

Andrew Turner: My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West has dealt with amendment No. 493 in some detail. It is a fact that review body reports tend to drift until there is an occasion, such as Boxing day, when the Government—I do not mean just this Government—find publication convenient for political purposes or because they have decided what they will do as a result of the report. Publishing such reports on Boxing day may contribute to the Government's effective handling of press relations, but it would be much more open, as my hon. Friend suggested, for the report to be put in the public domain and for a period of public discussion to ensue before the Government reach conclusions.
 During such a period, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough may want to use one of the Liberal Democrats' Supply days to debate the report. That is a matter for him, but I hope that it will not take place between Boxing day and new year's eve. 
 Amendment No. 496 relates to the proposals that the review body may make. It is important to reflect on the fact that the current teacher-supply position is probably one of the worst that we have ever experienced and it changes quickly. At the moment, it tends to move in a deleterious direction. Of course, that may not always be the case, but some schools find it incredibly difficult to recruit teachers in a very competitive market. 
 It would be unwise for the review body to impose at any stage a maximum on the salary that may be paid to any teacher or group of teachers. I am not saying that the review body has a recent history of so doing; that is not the case. The salaries of teachers, particularly super-teachers and super-heads, have tended to go up in leaps and bounds recently, which is an entirely good thing, but in many areas of the country recruitment is still difficult and retention even more so. We read in the pages of The Sun this morning about a class that has enjoyed the attention of 13 different teachers in 14 weeks—I may have got those numbers wrong.

Eleanor Laing: My hon. Friend is right.

Andrew Turner: I thank my hon. Friend.
 In my constituency, recruitment is difficult because teachers quite often come from families that rely on the earnings of two parties for their income. It is much more difficult to recruit a teacher to the island if there is no job there for his spouse, so special arrangements or negotiations for salaries may be appropriate in future. The review body needs to keep in mind the fact that setting upper limits on teachers' remuneration would be unwise. The best way for them to keep that in mind is for us to provide for it in the Bill.

Stephen Timms: On the first amendment, it is appropriate that the legal duty falls on the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, as it always has. I heard the hon. Member for Isle of Wight's remarks about the danger of delay. To be fair, I do not believe that that happened under the previous Government, and it has certainly not happened under this one. I do not believe there is a need to change the system. The STRB reports are produced to a public timetable; that is indicated in the remit letter sent by the Secretary of State. The full consultation process then begins. That is how it has worked for 10 years. I see no reason for change; it has not caused any difficulty.
 I turn to the second amendment to which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight spoke. Pay scales and progression up pay scales has been a key part of schools' and teachers' pay systems since the beginning. By definition, pay scales have maximums; otherwise, there would be little purpose in the pay review system. The hon. Gentleman suggested that there should not be a maximum at the top of the scale. There is already a great deal of flexibility to pay additional allowances to teachers; for example, for recruitment and retention; more responsibility brings additional allowances and successful teachers can access the upper pay scales and progress upwards. It is part of the review body's role to set the top of the scale as well as the other parts of the arrangements.

Graham Brady: I am again grateful to the Minister for his helpful comments and for his assurances of good faith on the first amendment regarding publication dates. I hope that Ministers will continue to receive prompt publication of these reports.
 The Minister's objection to amendment No. 496 seemed to centre on the question of pay scales and the need to fix an upper limit on a particular pay scale. Had the amendment been drafted in such a way as to prevent a maximum level of pay being fixed for teachers without the reference to ''any group of teachers'', he would have found it easier to accept. The object of the amendment was to ensure that no artificial constraint or limitation is placed on schools' ability to recruit the teachers they need, particularly in the current difficult climate of recruitment and retention across the country, and especially in certain areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight mentioned. I do not seek to press the amendment to a Division and I beg the Committee's leave to withdraw it. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 116 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 117 - Consultation by review body

Graham Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 494, in page 73, line 11, after 'schools' insert—
'( ) bodies representing the interests of parents'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 495, in page 73, line 11, after 'schools' insert—
'( ) bodies representing the interests of independent schools funded by the Secretary of State.'.

Graham Brady: Here, we deal with the review body's consultation of outside bodies during its deliberations. Amendment No. 494 seeks to ensure that the interests of parents are taken into account by including a new paragraph specifying that bodies representing parents' interests should be included as statutory consultees.
 Amendment No. 495 recognises the degree to which, through the previous Government's promotion of city technology colleges, the development of that model, and now, under this Bill, the potential to broaden them into academies, a far more diverse pattern of educational provision is beginning to emerge. Part of that pattern is a relatively new creature: an independent school that is funded by the Secretary of State. 
 An academy is an independent school that derives its revenue as if it were a maintained school. The schools will clearly have different challenges, and take different approaches from other schools in the maintained sector. The STRB should consider this separate category of schools with their potentially different needs and responsibilities when it draws its conclusions and makes its recommendations. That is especially so, given that many of those schools are likely to be in areas of particular difficulty where this kind of innovation has been encouraged precisely because of the difficulties faced. Such schools may, therefore, have a unique input, and their interests should be taken into account in a specific way. The amendment seeks to include that in the Bill.

Stephen Timms: The key point is that the parties listed in subsection (2) are under an obligation to implement what emerges from the STRB process in a way that the parties identified in the amendments are not. I therefore defend the arrangements, which are reproduced from the 1991 Act. I accept that other bodies that do not have the same obligations may have a less direct but nevertheless genuine interest in the STRB process.
 Parents' groups and independent schools may have views, and I emphasise that there is nothing to stop those parties from submitting their views to the STRB in the light of the remit that the Secretary of State gave to it. That document is public, and people can see what the remit is. The STRB can of its own accord ask those or other interested bodies to present additional views orally. It would be inappropriate to put parents and independent schools that are not subject to the school teachers' pay and conditions document, however they are funded, on a par with LEAs, governing bodies and teachers' unions whose relationship with the STRB is different and more direct.

Phil Willis: When we discussed city academies during consideration of the Learning and Skills Bill, I secured an agreement from the Minister at the time that those academies would be subject to the same admissions arrangements and STRB findings as other community schools. I understand that the Minister wants 20 new academies up and running by the end of this Parliament. Is he now saying that the academies will be treated as independent schools, as the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West said, and that they will not be subject to any of the STRB's findings?

Stephen Timms: That is the case. The city academies will not—they do not yet exist—be subject to the findings of the STRB. Perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman to give him some more information on the subject.

Graham Brady: I hope that the Minister will make that information available to all members of the Committee.

Stephen Timms: I am happy to give that assurance.

Graham Brady: I am grateful to the Minister. It will be an interesting document setting out with greater clarity exactly what requirements will be placed upon city academies. Clearly, if they are not subject to the deliberations or the outcome of recommendations from the STRB, it would be inappropriate for them to be a statutory consultee in the decision making process. If they are expected to observe the recommendations of the review body, Ministers may wish to reconsider the matter. We await the Minister's more detailed exposition. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 117 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 118 - Power to prescribe pay and conditions

Graham Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 529, in page 73, line 35, at end insert—
'(except where it is agreed between the parties that a services contract is exempt from the provisions of this Part).'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 526, in page 73, line 39, after 'carry out' insert 'only'.
 No. 527, in page 73, line 40, at end insert— 
'(e) he carries out work of a kind which is specified by regulations under section 129(1) for part of his contracted hours, in which case powers under section 118 may be applied to that proportion of the contracted hours.'.
 No. 528, in page 74, line 20, at end insert— 
'( ) Nothing in this or other education legislation shall prevent a local education authority or governing body from employing a teacher on a contract for services.'.

Graham Brady: This clause and group of amendments are a little more substantial. There is a great deal of flesh to be put on the bones of the Government's thinking in regard to elements of this clause. The amendments seek to draw out the Minister's thoughts on the precise role of a school teacher, perhaps harking back to our earlier exchange on what defines their professional role. This is a matter of increasing interest to all those who are involved in education, those who represent teachers and the teachers themselves. Given that Ministers now seek to define the functions that must be carried out only by a qualified teacher and, by implication, those that need not, we are starting to clarify that grey area.
 I remind the Minister of the difficulties that arose when the Secretary of State commented on the role of classroom assistants. Although Ministers were quick to try to redefine some of her remarks and were eager 
 to ensure that no one got the idea that classroom assistants would replace qualified teachers, aspects of the Bill go to the heart of the definition of the roles that are specific to qualified professional teachers and those that are not. The purpose is to draw out the Minister on exactly where that line should be, what aspects of a teacher's role he regards as being fundamental, what aspects are exclusively the remit of qualified teachers and which are not.

Chris Grayling: I would like to set out in a little more detail, the typical circumstances in which such a question might arise, and which reinforce the need for the Government to address the issues that have been raised by hon. Members in this amendment.
 I want the Minister to consider the example of a large secondary school that chooses to hire a sports coach. Part of the time, during school hours, the coach will provide physical education or leadership of sporting activities that are part of the normal curriculum provided by the school, but at the same time, will provide some additional support to the school, perhaps outside school hours, in support of school teams and training activities. The coach might be contracted, not in a classic teaching role, but to provide both a contribution to the curriculum within the school and some support outside the school. 
 There are situations where such a role might be funded partly by a parental contribution and it might be funded within the school as part of the recognition that teachers cannot do everything. The person concerned would be contracted by the school separately from a normal teaching contract to provide a specific service to the school, but would be providing a service that would, in part, normally be expected to fall within the remit of a teacher. Therefore, it is conceivable to set out a situation where a teaching contract is covered by this clause. It might not be applicable to someone who is none the less providing part of the role as a classic teacher. 
 I should be grateful if, when the Minister addresses the comments that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, he would consider that kind of situation, and in doing so, think about whether the aspirations that are set out in this amendment might add merit to the structure of the clause and to the Bill.

Andrew Turner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell for his comments about the different roles that may be adopted by those who are sometimes employed as teachers, and at other times employed for other purposes. In the circumstance to which he referred, one can equally envisage that the person who is teaching part-time, might also be managing the facility, managing community use of the facility, and doing a whole range of things that do not fall easily within the teachers' pay and conditions arrangements.
 I wanted to refer more particularly to amendments Nos. 528 and 529. Even if these amendments do not appeal to the Minister, I hope that they may appeal to Mr. Adonis, with whom I used to share membership of a school governing body. Some of his thoughts on these issues may drift in the same direction as mine. 
 One can envisage a number of circumstances where these amendments might be appropriate. Let us consider a school where one department is found to be failing. The rest of the school may be functioning effectively, but there may be serious weaknesses with the delivery of mathematics, for example. There may be a school down the road that is very effective at providing mathematic; it may be a state school, a city technology college or an independent school, or it may be an academy. One of those external institutions may be happy to assist in the provision of a mathematics teacher in that school, not merely by training, although that may be part of their function, but by being physically present in the classroom from time to time, or perhaps throughout a term, providing half the mathematics teaching in the school. They may be confident that they can continue to provide mathematics teaching in the home institution and be willing to let their teachers not merely oversee but teach mathematics in the classroom of a school that has serious difficulties, acting as the United States—perhaps I should say 3Es—cavalry riding to the rescue of a failing mathematics department. 
 In such circumstances, 3Es would not want to put members of its staff on a contract of employment with the school, as it may want to retain them for future contracts, but there must be a contract that enables the services to be provided by 3Es. That is what a service contract means. Such a contract could be used imaginatively to assist and rescue failing departments in schools, as it may not be possible in the time available to recruit enough new teachers or to retrain existing teachers without pupils losing two or three terms of education. Even one term of mathematics education lost is a serious drawback for the pupils affected, of whom there may be many in a large school. 
 Amendment No. 529 provides that such an arrangement would, if the parties agreed and even if only one teacher were involved, be outwith the determination of pay and conditions made by the Secretary of State, because those teachers would undertake additional work and expect additional remuneration, which might be appropriate.

Phil Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the people whom 3Es, for example, bring in to run the mathematics department of a school in the Isle of Wight, because teachers have been put off, having met the MP—

Chris Grayling: That was before the election.

Phil Willis: That was after the election. Does the amendment mean that the terms and conditions of those employed by 3Es who are sent to a particular department would be disapplied? Would they not have to conform to professional qualifications and be registered members of the GTC?

Andrew Turner: I had not envisaged that when I considered the amendment; I shall have to think about that proposition.

Phil Willis: I apologise for my flippant comment; I am sure everyone loves the hon. Gentleman. If teachers are registered members of the GTC, the teacher being brought in would be no different from a
 teacher employed through a supply agency who was sent to a school for a particular purpose.

Andrew Turner: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. It could indeed be a supply agency that provides the teachers, and there is nothing wrong in such an agency maintaining teams of teachers—a group of physicists, mathematicians or media-studies enthusiasts who operate well together, for example. That would provide flexibility in any attempt to improve failing schools. For that reason alone this is a worthwhile proposition, and I should be interested in the views of the Minister and his hon. Friends.

Stephen Timms: Nothing in the Bill prevents employment on a contract for services, so the amendment would not add anything to the measure. Orders made under clause 118 will form part of the contract of employment for teachers, and will override any locally agreed terms, as such orders do now, except in a limited number of cases in which pay and conditions have been or could be disapplied. It might be worth spelling those out. We are talking about ex-GM schools that opted out—a very small number chose to do so—education action zone schools that opt out, schools with earned autonomy under this Bill, and any school that uses the Bill's innovation clauses to disapply aspects of national pay and conditions.
 On amendment No. 529, where this part of the Bill applies to a teacher, it will not be possible for a local agreement to override a pay and conditions order, as that would undermine the national system.

Andrew Turner: I will try to paraphrase, and the Minister will tell me if I am wrong. There is nothing wrong with employing a teacher on a services contract. That is permissible, but subsection (3)(b) provides that such a person is a schoolteacher and therefore subject to the maximum pay scales—I had thought that they did not exist, but the Minister assured us that they do—and all other terms and conditions as prescribed by the clause. It would not be possible, for example, to recruit a team of super mathematicians from 3Es and pay them a bit more to do two jobs at once. That is not exactly what such teachers do, but they would be maintaining the mathematics provision in the home school as well as undertaking such teaching for the school in need. They would not do that without receiving reasonable recognition, and schools with such a weakness would not be able to benefit, certainly not quickly, from the earned autonomy or other opt-outs that the Minister described.

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman lost me slightly in that intervention. I do not think that there is an obstacle to the arrangement such as he envisaged, and it is possible for such a contract to be entered into. The orders that are envisaged in the Bill apply to contracts with LEAs and governing bodies of schools, but not elsewhere. The freedom to which he alluded is available.
 Amendments Nos. 526 and 527 are highly prescriptive. Amendment No. 526 would mean that a qualified teacher could carry out only the specified 
 work if they were to be paid as a qualified teacher. Amendment No. 527 would mean that a teacher would be paid as a qualified teacher only for the proportion of his or her time that was spent carrying out specified work that only a qualified teacher can do. That may not have been the intention, but it would be the effect. The difficulty is not only with the choice of words in the amendments, but with the intent behind them. They would create an unhelpful incentive for teachers to avoid taking on other tasks even when, from everyone's point of view, it would make sense to do so.

Graham Brady: I accept the Minister's difficulty with the drafting of the amendments, but I repeat my invitation to explore the definitions of work that should be limited to teachers and work that could be carried out by others.

Stephen Timms: That is a fair point, and we will do that when we come to clause 129. We provided more information to the Committee with the policy statement on teacher qualifications that was distributed on Tuesday, and we may want to debate some of the issues in it.

Phil Willis: Does the Minister accept the need for greater clarification on what I call sub-contracting? Under the 1993 arrangements, further education colleges were incorporated, which allowed institutions to set different pay and conditions. A difficult situation arose in many colleges, and the supply of contract teachers through agencies escalated. When the Minister offers guidance, would he reflect on the fact that teachers do not simply come into a maths department to teach maths? They are part of a broader spectrum of activities offered by the school, and I hope that that was what the Minister implied. A teacher cannot divorce a maths lesson from personal and social education or the exercise of duties throughout the school. I trust the Minister will not be sucked into that awful practice of considering teachers as just contracted employees.

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the characteristics of schools and working in them. Any such arrangement would be made only if the head teacher decided that it would help to improve standards. The head would want to take into account all the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. Currently, agency staff are not eligible for national pay and conditions. Someone employed in the normal way is eligible for national pay and conditions, which is what the orders relate to.

Phil Willis: That is an important issue. The comments of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight about the article in The Sun raise serious concern. During the last three years, the number of teaching staff working through agencies has increased, because they can get plenty of work and do not have to undertake the host of other responsibilities that accompany the teaching role. All the political parties, and particularly the Government, must think before encouraging contract work in schools, because it would undermine the fabric of state sector education.

Stephen Timms: We do not want to encourage contract work, but we do not want to put up unnecessary barriers to it.

Phil Willis: We need a balance.

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman is right. I would like as many vacancies as possible to be filled by regular teachers. However, in recent months we have not seen the disruption in schools that was a feature of recruitment and retention problems under Conservative Governments, when children were sent home and schools were seriously disrupted. That has not happened partly because the supply arrangements in many schools have worked quite well. That is the balance that I hope we will strike successfully.

Andrew Turner: None of us wants teaching services to be provided in the way described by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. However, there are only two ways of reducing a shortage: the first is to make terms and conditions less onerous, and the second is to make those terms better. The Minister told
 us that even under contract, the terms cannot be made better than the national arrangements, except in certain—[Interruption.]—He said that a teacher under contract is subject to the national pay and conditions arrangements except in the opt outs that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough described.

Stephen Timms: I am conscious that we have only a few seconds remaining. If the teacher is on contract and employed by someone else, the provisions do not have to apply. If the teacher is employed by the school in the ordinary way, they do.
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman, adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.